At 10/26/2012 12:14:01 PM, baggins wrote:In last century - Hitler and George Bush.

I would not list him among worst of all time due to Patriot Act. Moreover he was not a dictator from American POV. (There was some controversy over his election the first time - however he won clearly the second time). Think about him from POV of an Afghanistani or Iraqi citizen. He destroyed complete countries (Hundreds of Thousands of deaths) and was clearly a dictator as far as they were concerned.

The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

At 10/26/2012 12:14:01 PM, baggins wrote:In last century - Hitler and George Bush.

I would not list him among worst of all time due to Patriot Act. Moreover he was not a dictator from American POV. (There was some controversy over his election the first time - however he won clearly the second time). Think about him from POV of an Afghanistani or Iraqi citizen. He destroyed complete countries (Hundreds of Thousands of deaths) and was clearly a dictator as far as they were concerned.

That was not last century. Nor was George Bush a dictator whatsoever, especially not one that would be comparable to ANY major-scale dictator from the last century. Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now than they would ever be under their former leaderships, and if those leaderships were not broken.

At 10/26/2012 12:14:01 PM, baggins wrote:In last century - Hitler and George Bush.

I would not list him among worst of all time due to Patriot Act. Moreover he was not a dictator from American POV. (There was some controversy over his election the first time - however he won clearly the second time). Think about him from POV of an Afghanistani or Iraqi citizen. He destroyed complete countries (Hundreds of Thousands of deaths) and was clearly a dictator as far as they were concerned.

That was not last century. Nor was George Bush a dictator whatsoever, especially not one that would be comparable to ANY major-scale dictator from the last century. Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now than they would ever be under their former leaderships, and if those leaderships were not broken.

The thread states "Worst Dictators of All Time" not "Worst Dictators of the Last Century."

Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler

At 10/26/2012 12:14:01 PM, baggins wrote:In last century - Hitler and George Bush.

I would not list him among worst of all time due to Patriot Act. Moreover he was not a dictator from American POV. (There was some controversy over his election the first time - however he won clearly the second time). Think about him from POV of an Afghanistani or Iraqi citizen. He destroyed complete countries (Hundreds of Thousands of deaths) and was clearly a dictator as far as they were concerned.

That was not last century. Nor was George Bush a dictator whatsoever, especially not one that would be comparable to ANY major-scale dictator from the last century. Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now than they would ever be under their former leaderships, and if those leaderships were not broken.

The thread states "Worst Dictators of All Time" not "Worst Dictators of the Last Century."

Well, I don't know much about Ghengis Khan etc...

The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

At 10/26/2012 12:14:01 PM, baggins wrote:In last century - Hitler and George Bush.

I would not list him among worst of all time due to Patriot Act. Moreover he was not a dictator from American POV. (There was some controversy over his election the first time - however he won clearly the second time). Think about him from POV of an Afghanistani or Iraqi citizen. He destroyed complete countries (Hundreds of Thousands of deaths) and was clearly a dictator as far as they were concerned.

That was not last century...

My mistake. I meant last hundred years.

... Nor was George Bush a dictator whatsoever, especially not one that would be comparable to ANY major-scale dictator from the last century. Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now than they would ever be under their former leaderships, and if those leaderships were not broken.

No they are not.

We have no clue how many people died in Iraq. Various estimates of excess civilians death in Iraq vary from 100,000 to 1,000,000. This cannot be good in anyway. Saddam Hussain was not a nice man. However he ruled pretty decently after 1992-93. There was no concept of Shia and Sunnis bombing each other either until Americans arrived.

While you may disagree completely with Taliban rules and policies, how was there rule worse than current lawlessness? In fact - as far as peace is concerned, they were much better than the warlords before them. This was the reason they were successful in establishing control in Afghanistan.

The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

Ahmadinejad? Isn't he getting the boot? and the didn't have all that much power to begin with.

King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, the rest of the royal family for that.Putin might make the list right?Obama granted himself power to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process. Though he pinky swears he won't do that to any of us.

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

At 10/26/2012 12:14:01 PM, baggins wrote:In last century - Hitler and George Bush.

I would not list him among worst of all time due to Patriot Act. Moreover he was not a dictator from American POV. (There was some controversy over his election the first time - however he won clearly the second time). Think about him from POV of an Afghanistani or Iraqi citizen. He destroyed complete countries (Hundreds of Thousands of deaths) and was clearly a dictator as far as they were concerned.

That was not last century. Nor was George Bush a dictator whatsoever, especially not one that would be comparable to ANY major-scale dictator from the last century. Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now than they would ever be under their former leaderships, and if those leaderships were not broken.

The thread states "Worst Dictators of All Time" not "Worst Dictators of the Last Century."

I didn't respond to what the thread states. I responded to what Baggin's said. "In last century - Hitler and George Bush." Thanks for your attention.

No, of course not. You're comparing indirect and unintended deaths post-invasion to intended, direct murders of innocent people that were higher in numbers than the indirect deaths supposedly caused by the US invasion. Nonsense.

We have no clue how many people died in Iraq.

So that weakens your argument. On the other hand, we have very good clues as to how many died due to Saddam's rule. His war against Iran, Kuwait, and the people of his country is very much recorded in detail.

Various estimates of excess civilians death in Iraq vary from 100,000 to 1,000,000.

Hmm, not very accurate is it?

This cannot be good in anyway.

How many died due to Saddam? Tell me.

Saddam Hussain was not a nice man. However he ruled pretty decently after 1992-93.

Oh! So did Stalin post-WWII. I'm sure you wouldn't mind all the millions of deaths he caused.

There was no concept of Shia and Sunnis bombing each other either until Americans arrived.

No, there was a concept of one man ordering mass-murder and graves of Shia's, all until Americans arrived. I prefer the time when Americans arrived, and I am classified as a Sunni.

While you may disagree completely with Taliban rules and policies, how was there rule worse than current lawlessness?

Current lawlessness? Afghani troops and police forces are better off now than they were in many decades prior to US invasion. Moreover, the justification for entering Afghanistan had nothing to do with merely changing the state of law in Afghanistan.

In fact - as far as peace is concerned, they were much better than the warlords before them. This was the reason they were successful in establishing control in Afghanistan.

Yea, and control over planes which they could use to fly into buildings and murder 3,000+ people in a day.Thanks to Bush, that's not happening anymore. Their rule in Afghanistan crumbled, that's why they dare NOT threaten the world in such a devastating matter ever again.

No, of course not. You're comparing indirect and unintended deaths post-invasion to intended, direct murders of innocent people that were higher in numbers than the indirect deaths supposedly caused by the US invasion. Nonsense.

You are not sure wether US invasion caused those deaths?

There is another factor you are forgetting. When Saddam Hussain targeted a community, it was because of political reasons. On other hand, the Americans have created divisions between Shias and Sunnis which are likely to exist forever.

We have no clue how many people died in Iraq.

So that weakens your argument. On the other hand, we have very good clues as to how many died due to Saddam's rule. His war against Iran, Kuwait, and the people of his country is very much recorded in detail.

No we don't have good numbers for that either. Might be around 100,000.

We don't have records of that either.

Various estimates of excess civilians death in Iraq vary from 100,000 to 1,000,000.

Hmm, not very accurate is it?

So?

This cannot be good in anyway.

How many died due to Saddam? Tell me.

Saddam Hussain was not a nice man. However he ruled pretty decently after 1992-93.

Oh! So did Stalin post-WWII. I'm sure you wouldn't mind all the millions of deaths he caused.

I don't know about Stalin's rule. And I am not trying to say Saddam Hussain was a good person. However, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not justified in anyway. BTW the justification was a complete fabrication.

There was no concept of Shia and Sunnis bombing each other either until Americans arrived.

No, there was a concept of one man ordering mass-murder and graves of Shia's, all until Americans arrived. I prefer the time when Americans arrived, and I am classified as a Sunni.

I prefer neither. And as I pointed out - situation after 1992 was better than situation after 2003.

While you may disagree completely with Taliban rules and policies, how was there rule worse than current lawlessness?

Current lawlessness? Afghani troops and police forces are better off now than they were in many decades prior to US invasion...

And what about Afghanistani people?

...Moreover, the justification for entering Afghanistan had nothing to do with merely changing the state of law in Afghanistan.

In fact - as far as peace is concerned, they were much better than the warlords before them. This was the reason they were successful in establishing control in Afghanistan.

Yea, and control over planes which they could use to fly into buildings and murder 3,000+ people in a day.Thanks to Bush, that's not happening anymore. Their rule in Afghanistan crumbled, that's why they dare NOT threaten the world in such a devastating matter ever again.

There is no evidence that Taliban planned WTC attacks. They were focused on Afghansitan.

The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

No, of course not. You're comparing indirect and unintended deaths post-invasion to intended, direct murders of innocent people that were higher in numbers than the indirect deaths supposedly caused by the US invasion. Nonsense.

You are not sure wether US invasion caused those deaths?

There is another factor you are forgetting. When Saddam Hussain targeted a community, it was because of political reasons. On other hand, the Americans have created divisions between Shias and Sunnis which are likely to exist forever.

We have no clue how many people died in Iraq.

So that weakens your argument. On the other hand, we have very good clues as to how many died due to Saddam's rule. His war against Iran, Kuwait, and the people of his country is very much recorded in detail.

No we don't have good numbers for that either. Might be around 100,000.

Various estimates of excess civilians death in Iraq vary from 100,000 to 1,000,000.

Hmm, not very accurate is it?

So?

This cannot be good in anyway.

How many died due to Saddam? Tell me.

Saddam Hussain was not a nice man. However he ruled pretty decently after 1992-93.

Oh! So did Stalin post-WWII. I'm sure you wouldn't mind all the millions of deaths he caused.

I don't know about Stalin's rule. And I am not trying to say Saddam Hussain was a good person. However, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not justified in anyway. BTW the justification was a complete fabrication.

There was no concept of Shia and Sunnis bombing each other either until Americans arrived.

No, there was a concept of one man ordering mass-murder and graves of Shia's, all until Americans arrived. I prefer the time when Americans arrived, and I am classified as a Sunni.

I prefer neither. And as I pointed out - situation after 1992 was better than situation after 2003.

While you may disagree completely with Taliban rules and policies, how was there rule worse than current lawlessness?

Current lawlessness? Afghani troops and police forces are better off now than they were in many decades prior to US invasion...

And what about Afghanistani people?

...Moreover, the justification for entering Afghanistan had nothing to do with merely changing the state of law in Afghanistan.

In fact - as far as peace is concerned, they were much better than the warlords before them. This was the reason they were successful in establishing control in Afghanistan.

Yea, and control over planes which they could use to fly into buildings and murder 3,000+ people in a day.Thanks to Bush, that's not happening anymore. Their rule in Afghanistan crumbled, that's why they dare NOT threaten the world in such a devastating matter ever again.

There is no evidence that Taliban planned WTC attacks. They were focused on Afghansitan.

At 10/26/2012 1:41:36 PM, baggins wrote:You are not sure wether US invasion caused those deaths?

No, nobody knows for sure. Saddam created a mess for almost every Iraqi citizen, and to attribue 100,000+ deaths to an invasion that attempted to protect Iraqis and give them more freedom and prosperity is rubbish.

There is another factor you are forgetting. When Saddam Hussain targeted a community, it was because of political reasons. On other hand, the Americans have created divisions between Shias and Sunnis which are likely to exist forever.

This doesn't make sense. Saddam attacked Shias for political reasons, and Americans created divisions for what? Entertainment reasons? The Americans did not such thing regardless. It's a huge mumble jumble conspiracy.

No we don't have good numbers for that either. Might be around 100,000.

We don't have records of that either.

Please Google the evidence. I can spam with innumerable sources if you wish.

Various estimates of excess civilians death in Iraq vary from 100,000 to 1,000,000.

Hmm, not very accurate is it?

So?

So your argument is nonsensical. You don't just respond "So?" when someone questions the accuracy of your claims.

This cannot be good in anyway.

How many died due to Saddam? Tell me.

I still want you to tell me.

I don't know about Stalin's rule. And I am not trying to say Saddam Hussain was a good person. However, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not justified in anyway. BTW the justification was a complete fabrication.

No. It was based on very hard evidence, which unfortunately happened to have been erroneous. Your argument is a conspiracy.

The rest of your post is repetition. By the way, I referred to the Al-Qaeda operating terror attacks from Afghanistan. They did, but hardly do with the same strength anymore. 9/11 would be a taste of their power had Bush not decided to take action against them. And yes, the Afghanis are way better off, and will probably be much more in the future. Just think of the fact that their former leaders prohibited education for 50% of the population. That's disastrous. Only cavemen would deem that a path to success.

At 10/26/2012 1:45:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:Rofl, did you actually just say the Afghan people liked their lives better under the Taliban?!

Hah!

It may sound surprising. However it is almost certainly true.

lolwut? If anything its better or the same. Afghanistan was already going through a civil war in the 1990s between the Talibs and the Northern Alliance. At least now most regions of the country have been stabilizied, and there isnt systemic executions occuring to deter political factionism.

Your whole argument is that since Saddam Hussain murdered lots of people, American attacks are justified. This argument is not correct. I suggest that you look at the rough timeline to understand the American role...

1980-88 onwards - Saddam attacks Iran with American aid. Uses weapons of mass destruction (supplied by USA) against Iran. Kills his own people. Lots of people die.

1988-1992: Saddam attacks Quwait. America does not like it. America attacks Iraq. Truce is signed in 1992. Again lots of people die.

1992-2003: Saddam rules much better than earlier. I am not saying it was perfect, however it was much much better Saddam ruling this time. US and Iraq remain under tension. Lots of economic sanctions are applied.

2003 onwards: Iraq is invaded again under a fake pretext. Again lots of people die.

You are deluding yourself if you think that 2003 invasion was for 'liberating' people of Iraq. In any case, that is not how people of Iraq look at the attack. In the end, their final answer to Bush was the shoe thrown by Muntazar Al-Zaidi. It was an event which resonated over the country.

The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

Your whole argument is that since Saddam Hussain murdered lots of people, American attacks are justified. This argument is not correct. I suggest that you look at the rough timeline to understand the American role...

Completely false. I said the US invasion was in no way worse, and that its justification lies within the fact that numerous intelligence agencies reported development of WMD's by Saddam, and that Bush had to act accordingly to his best abilities. Two separate arguments, both very sound.

1980-88 onwards - Saddam attacks Iran with American aid. Uses weapons of mass destruction (supplied by USA) against Iran. Kills his own people. Lots of people die.

It wouldn't have happened without Saddam waging the war in the first place.

1988-1992: Saddam attacks Quwait. America does not like it. America attacks Iraq. Truce is signed in 1992. Again lots of people die.

Sounds like Saddam is the bad guy here.

1992-2003: Saddam rules much better than earlier. I am not saying it was perfect, however it was much much better Saddam ruling this time. US and Iraq remain under tension. Lots of economic sanctions are applied.

That does not matter! The 2003 invasion had NO INTENTION to bring democracy and whatnot. It was due to authentic, but erroneous reports that nobody fabricated. The fabrication theory is nonsense and a mere conspiracy.

2003 onwards: Iraq is invaded again under a fake pretext. Again lots of people die.

Not fake. Erroneous, but not fake.

You are deluding yourself if you think that 2003 invasion was for 'liberating' people of Iraq.

I did not say that, sir.

In any case, that is not how people of Iraq look at the attack. In the end, their final answer to Bush was the shoe thrown by Muntazar Al-Zaidi. It was an event which resonated over the country.

What type of Iraqi people are you talking about? I watched a documentary a couple of years ago where numerous Iraqi groups of people reported great satisfaction with the American presence, and that they'd feel very uncomfortable without them. They showed gratitude toward the American support that helped getting rid of Saddam.